About your Search

20120928
20121006
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
and said it had to be he must have gotten foreign policy information that must have thrown him all askew. it's like people coming up with all these reasonings instead of looking at it as it was, which were two men on stage talking about the economy and where this country is moving forward and that's what it was! so just judge it for what it was with two men on the stage. not altitude probes or foreign policy secrets. >> brian: it reminds me of this great band, the blues brothers, who found themselves in a pickle and had to lie their way out of it. tell me if this sounds familiar. >> you betrayed me! >> no, i didn't. honest! i ran out of gas! i had a flat tire! i didn't have money for cab fare. my tux didn't come back from the cleaners. a friend came from out of town. there was a earthquake! a terrible flood! it wasn't my fault! i swear to god! >> brian: i just think that's e. that's very similar vein for what we're seeing right now. and i bought all those excuses and i'm buying these ones now. altitude and unexpected something got on my mind before that 90-minute debate. >> gretchen: may
of issues going on in foreign policy not the least of which is what happens september 11th, so depending on demographics if you watch the woman's talk show you had a certain glimpse of what happened and if you watch the sunday programs, you had a completely different glimpse, and of course if you listen to press conferences, you had a third iteration of what potentially happened. with the previous welcome can you tell me that foreign policy shoved its way to the shop of the list of the platform for the election and tell me the insights as to mitt romney in the pc road today in the journal. >> well, first of all, i think it is going to be a big issue in the campaign. i still think this week is going to be dominated by the economy, but you're seeing foreign policy and national security percolate up the ladder as far as what issues are going to matter in november, and here is why. obviously we can talk about the economy and what a mess it has been and that barack obama hasn't fulfilled his promises. we put that aside. then you look overseas and the atlantic toeocean and the promi obama made
taking our foreign policy in a different direction. the middle east is in flames against america and our ambassador is dead. mr. president, in sudan they will not allow u.s. marines to guard american soil. what do you have to say about that? >> sean: romney has got to understand, they're not going to ask these questions. it's his job to bring it up as of next wednesday. here's andrea mitchell, "nbc nightly news," and she says it's ambassador rice who was sent out with false information that we now know is false, as corroborated by a scrubbed websites at the state department to lie as as did jay carney, as did secretary clinton. watch this. >> it's very unusual for the intelligence community to make this admission. politics are clearly in play. the questions being asked are why did they get it wrong? was it because there was a cover-up or was it because they were trying to avoid acknowledging mistakes this close to an election? so there is always a political context. certainly the white house today and tonight very strongly defending susan rice, but she is in the crosshairs right now of t
, which i believe is focused on foreign policy. i just want the candidates to be asked about this. >> there's also, mika, a front page in the "new york times" that everybody ought to read saying u.s. abandoning hopes for taliban peace deal. just to go back to afghanistan. it says one of the expectations was that we could batter the taliban coming to the table to work out some kind of a deal. well, we all could've handed our government history books that would indicate over history that wasn't going to happen. so the idea that's a surprise that the taliban isn't going to suddenly sit down with us and work out a government and work alongside us should not come as a surprise to people, but apparently it is. now we walk away from that possibility. >> obviously afghanistan has a long history with the british, the soviets, everybody. and there's a famous saying, you can't want democracy for more than they want it for themselves. so we are not going to change the whole culture of afghanistan. it's not why we went there. we went to deal with al qaeda and terrorism and it became a nation-b
. >> another foreign policy question, senator, you have criticized senator men mendes -- quote, when the mission is complete, we will bring the troops home. and you defined the mission as disables al qaeda and disables the taliban. the taliban are at least sub bornly persistent. are you prepared to see u.s. troops stay indefinite nately. >> i said at this point i agree with the timeline. we want to bring the men and women back home. what trouble -- what troubles me is that when we make decisions for political purposes. perhaps for election purposes, and i'm not sure that flagging our intentions to put out definitely time lines was and would be the smartest answer. you have people that want to do us harm. you have the taliban there think about human beings differently than we do. we know about the atrocity to women. and so what we haven't done a good enough job is inning the educating our country about the bad guys that exist that we need to meet them offshore before they come on shore. it's only been ten years and a little more. since 9/11. >> moderator: your response, sir. menendez:
for him there and hopefully that some people who do like a little less aggressive foreign policy, who are fiscally conservative but want the government to be limited and really think that the debt's a problem, those have been the things that i have talked about. and i think that will attract some moderates and independents also to the ticket. >> when -- and i see it where what you just said, people are -- romney was interviewed by cnn, said about ohio, polls go up and polls go down, but when november 6th comes people are going to recognize we don't want a government that just keeps getting larger and larger and we want more, you know, business and the private sector to do better. and when he picked ryan, i thought, all right, it's a clear choice now, the country has a clear choice which way they want to go. but something got lost in the last -- you can just look at the polls where that didn't -- people are not looking at that at this point. they must be looking at something else because we do see president obama leading in most polls. what changed? what's different? >> well, it doesn'
on defense. the question, really, is it's got to be on issues of foreign policy and areas where he might get to do that. so interesting time for the president. and like i said, the hardest part about this and out of all the element os testify campaign, debates are the worst. it parolizes the campaign. it seizes up, particularly if you come out of the gate and do not have a good performance. it puts all the pressure on the president, puts pressure on the staff. so the next two weeks, not going to be fun in the obama camp but i would expect a sharper more offensive-minded debate. >> as you point out, you're dealing with an area where the headlines have not gone their way in the past month. dan, i loved having you on. we'll see you next time. >> good to see you. >> dan bartlett joining us from atlantic. ga gary cokaminsky. >> i'm here in the control room. i was watching like much of the viewers. meg whitman joined. a lot of people wondering why is the slot down again today? let me tell you. every time a ceo comes on the air there's anticipation that the ceo is going to say something to at least
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)